RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01248
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 2 May  1995  be  removed
from his records.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was reprisal due to discrimination.

In his proposed AFI 36-2401 appeal, applicant contends  that  his  key
duties, task and responsibilities were inaccurate; he should not  have
been rated by another staff sergeant; the statements by the evaluators
are incorrect;  and  his  supervision  should  not  have  allowed  the
unsubstantiated and badly written EPR to be entered in  his  permanent
record.

In support of his appeal, applicant provided a copy of Summary  Report
of Investigation,  with  his  rebuttal  comments;  a  proposed  appeal
package for submission under the provisions of  AFI  36-2401,  with  a
memorandum from his military personnel flight  (MPF)  recommending  he
obtain additional support for his appeal; records of counseling,  with
his rebuttal comments; extracts from his service medical  records  and
documentation associated  with  the  Weight  Management  Program;  and
applicant’s correspondences to the numbered Air Force IG and  the  DOD
IG.  (Exhibit A)

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  22
January 1986.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade  of
staff sergeant.

A resume of applicant’s APRs/EPRs follows:

      PERIOD CLOSING   OVERALL EVALUATION

        21 Jan 87      9
        21 Jan 88      9
        21 Jan 89      9
        30 Nov 89 (EPR)      4
        31 Jul 90      4
        13 Jan 91      5
        13 Jan 92      5
        13 Nov 93      5
        13 Nov 94      5
   *     2 May 95      3
         2 May 96      5
         2 May 97      5
         2 May 98      5

* Contested report.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Commander’s  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPSFC,   provided   comments
addressing  the  Air  Force  weight  management  program.    After   a
discussion of maintaining Air Force  weight  standards,  DPSFC  stated
that it appears applicant’s unit has some misunderstanding of the  WMP
in that they:  indicated that a female took the body fat  measurements
on applicant, a male member (AFI 40-502, para 2.4, which provides that
all personnel are measured for body fat by an individual of  the  same
sex); indicated that  the  applicant’s  leave  request  was  initially
disapproved since his assignment was to be cancelled if placed in  the
WMP.  Applicant’s assignment would  not  have  been  canceled  due  to
initial entry into the WMP; due to the number of repeated  weight  and
body fat measurements taken on the applicant, it appears that the unit
did not fully understand a member could be overweight, but within body
fat standards and not have to be entered into the WMP; and  that  they
could enroll a member overweight, but within body fat  into  a  90-day
exercise program without entering them into the WMP.  (Exhibit C)

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
provided comments  addressing  supplemental  promotion  consideration.
Should the Board void the contested report in its entirety, or upgrade
the overall rating, providing he is otherwise, eligible, the applicant
will be entitled to  supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning
with cycle 97E6.  The applicant will not become a select during  cycle
97E6 or 98E6 if the Board grants his request.  (Exhibit D)

The Acting Chief, BCMR and SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this
application and recommended denial  based  on  the  lack  of  evidence
provided.

The applicant has failed to provide any information/support  from  the
rating chain on the contested report.

Noting  applicant’s  contention  that  his  supervisor  rendered   the
contested report in reprisal against him, DPPPAB stated the  applicant
has not submitted clear evidence to prove reprisal was a factor.   The
applicant provided a Summary Report of Investigation (SROI)  from  the
IG which reveals that none  of  his  allegations  were  substantiated.
Unfortunately, the applicant did not believe this  unbiased,  trained,
investigating officer and included a copy of his rebuttal comments  to
the inspector’s findings.

The applicant did not agree with his  evaluator’s  assessment  of  his
duty performance and  points  out  that  she  used  poor  grammar  and
improperly constructed sentences in the body of the EPR  which  demean
the report.  While DPPPAB agrees the report  is  poorly  written,  the
facts contained in the report are  substantiated  by  two  letters  of
counseling received during  the  reporting  period  and  the  SROI  he
included to support his appeal.

The EPR also accurately  states  that  while  he  met  the  Air  Force
standards of dress and appearance, weight  and  fitness,  customs  and
courtesies (Sec III, Evaluation of Performance, item 3), he had to  be
repeatedly told to place more emphasis on his  dress,  appearance  and
weight standards.  Even though he did not ever exceed the maximum  Air
Force body fat standard established for men over 30, the fact  remains
he was 54 pounds over his maximum allowable  weight,  which  gave  the
appearance he was not within standards.

The applicant appears to be trying to convince us the  “3”  rating  he
received on the EPR was a result  of  prejudice  and  harassment  from
members of his squadron, focusing  on  the  number  of  times  he  was
required to weigh in.  DPPPAB did not agree.  While he may  have  been
weighed more frequently than other members of his squadron, he was  54
pounds over his maximum allowable weight.  The EPR is  not  inaccurate
or unfair simply because the applicant believes it is.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
28 September 1998 for  review  and  comment.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After careful consideration
of the applicant’s complete submission, it appears that there may have
been selective enforcement of the Weight Management Program  (WMP)  in
the  applicant’s  case,  even  though  he  was  within  the  body  fat
standards, and that  it  may  have  negatively  impacted  the  overall
assessment of the his duty performance  during  the  contested  rating
period.  We therefore  believe  that  some  doubt  exists  as  to  the
accuracy and fairness of the  contested  report  and  that  any  doubt
should be resolved in the applicant’s favor by removing the  contested
report  from  his  records.   Accordingly,  we  recommend   that   the
applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

4.  Even though the applicant has not requested supplemental promotion
consideration, we note that the contested report was considered during
the 97E6 and 98E6 cycles.  In view of the assessment  by  DPPPWB  that
the applicant would not have been a selectee during these  cycles  had
the report been absent from his records and in the absence of evidence
by the applicant to the contrary, we do not believe  a  recommendation
for supplemental consideration for promotion during the  above  cycles
is warranted.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  AF  Form  910,
Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSGT), rendered  for  the  period
14 November 1994 through 2 May 1995, be declared void and removed from
his records.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 March 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFC, dated 14 Aug 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Aug 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 11 Sep 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Sep 98.



                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-01248




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air
Force relating to [APPLICANT], be corrected to show that the  AF  Form
910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB  thru  TSGT),  rendered  for  the
period 14 November 1994  through  2  May  1995,  be,  and  hereby  is,
declared void and removed from his records.








            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency